↓ Skip to main content

N of 1 trials and the optimal individualisation of drug treatments: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
N of 1 trials and the optimal individualisation of drug treatments: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0479-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Weyinmi A. Demeyin, Julia Frost, Obioha C. Ukoumunne, Simon Briscoe, Nicky Britten

Abstract

Guidelines and evidence-based drug treatment recommendations are usually based on the results of clinical trials, which have limited generalisability in routine clinical settings due to their restrictive eligibility criteria. These trials are also conducted in ideal and rigorously controlled settings. N of 1 trials, which are single patient multiple crossover studies, offer a means of increasing the evidence base and individualising care for individuals in clinical practice. This systematic review of the N of 1 drug treatment trial aims to investigate its usefulness for achieving optimal individualised patient care. The following databases will be searched for relevant articles: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO (all via Ovid), AMED, CINAHAL (via EBSCO), The Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL, NHS EED, and DARE), and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). Supplementary searches will include ongoing trial databases and organisational websites. All N of 1 trials in which patients have been treated with a drug will be considered. Outcomes will include information on the clinical usefulness of N of 1 trials-i.e. achievement of optimal individualised care, health-care utilisation of patients, frequently used practices, experiences of clinical care or participation in N of 1 trials, adherence to treatment plan, and unwanted effects of the treatment. Screening of included papers will be undertaken independently by two reviewers, while data extraction and the quality of reporting will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another. Both quantitative and qualitative summaries will be reported using appropriate methods. This review will provide new insights into the clinical utility of N of 1 drug trials in helping participants find the most acceptable treatment as defined by patients and clinicians based on the selected outcome measures and the perspectives of participants involved in such trials. Findings from this review will inform the development of a stakeholder workshop and guidance to help physicians find the optimum therapy for their patients and will help guide future research on N of 1 trials. PROSPERO CRD42016032452.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 26%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 16%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Psychology 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 10 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2017.
All research outputs
#14,222,467
of 17,814,645 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,423
of 1,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,405
of 274,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#13
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,814,645 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,112 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.